reproductions supplied by edrs are the best that can be ... · valesky & hirth, 1992). ......
TRANSCRIPT
DOCUMENT RESUME
ED 448 530 EA 030 803
AUTHOR Lowe, Mark A.; Brigham, Frederick J.
TITLE Supervising Special Education Instruction: Does It Deserve a
Special Place in Administrative Preparatory Programs?
PUB DATE 2000-10-07
NOTE 22p.
PUB TYPE Information Analyses (070) -- Reports Evaluative (142)
EDRS PRICE MF01/PC01 Plus Postage.
DESCRIPTORS *Administrator Qualifications; *Administrator Role;
Elementary Secondary Education; *Principals; Public Schools;
*School Administration; *Special Education; Supervisors;
Supervisory Methods; *Supervisory Training
ABSTRACTThe role of the principal as the instructional leader is
particularly important in special education because the principal's attitude
toward special-education students, as well as his or her ability, or
inability, to supervise their instruction, will ultimately determine the
efficacy of the school's special-education services. Moreover, the delivery
of special-education services, far more than general-education services,
presents school divisions with a substantial risk of legal liability.
Nevertheless, preservice administrators are not being adequately prepared to
supervise the instructional methodologies of special educators. The following
steps are recommended to address this problem: (1) preservice administrators
should be required to complete coursework in special educational
instructional methodologies; (2) inservice training similar to preservice
training should also be provided to current site-based administrators; (3)
instructional specialists should be incorporated in the supervisory program;
and (4) quality in special education instruction needs to be emphasized.
(Contains 6 pages of references.) (DFR)
Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be madefrom the original document.
SCOPE OF INTEREST NOTICE
The ERIC Facility has assignedthis document for processingto:
in our judgment, this documentis also of Interest to the Clear-inghouses noted to the right.Indexing should reflect theirNNW& points of view.
Supervising Special Education Instruction:Does It Deserve A Special Place In Administrative
Preparatory Programs?
Mark A. Lowe, M.Ed.Education Specialist student in Administration and
SupervisionDepartment of Leadership, Foundations and Policy
Curry School of EducationUniversity of Virginia405 Emmet Street South
Charlottesville, Virginia 22903(804)963-4832
Frederick J. Brigham, Ph.D.Assistant Professor of Special Education
Department of Curriculum, Instruction and Special EducationCurry School of EducationUniversity of Virginia405 Emmet Street South
P.O. Box 400273Charlottesville, Virginia 22903-2495
(804)924-0767
PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE ANDDISSEMINATE THIS MATERIAL HAS
BEEN GRANTED BY
P11. L ovJe,
TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCESINFORMATION CENTER (ERIC)
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATIONOffice of Educational Research and Improvement
EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATIONCENTER (ERIC)
CI)
This document has been reproduced asreceived from the person or organizationoriginating it.
0 Minor changes have been made toimprove reproduction quality.
tri
Points of view or opinions stated in thisdocument do not necessarily representofficial OERI position or policy.
October 7, 2000
BEST COPY AVAILABLE
2
supervision
Abstract
The delivery of special education services, far more
than general education services, presents school divisions
with a substantial risk of legal liability. Yet, pre-service
administrators are not being adequately prepared to
supervise the instructional methodologies of special
educators. To address that, the following steps are
recommended: first, require preservice administrators to
complete coursework in special education instructional
methodologies; second, provide similar inservice training to
current site-based administrators; third, incorporate
instructional specialists into the supervisory program; and
finally, emphasize quality in special education instruction.
supervision, 1
Introduction
The ability of a principal to serve as his or her school's
instructional leader is a one of the most significant
determinants of an individual school's effectiveness (Algozzinne,
Ysseldyke & Campbell, 1994; Goor, Schwenn & Boyer, 1997; Kirner,
Vatour & Vatour, 1993). Regardless of whether it is in special
education, or general education, "...the principal is the
instructional leader for all programs within the school" (Goor,
et al., 1997, p. 133). Goor, et al. (1997) added, however, that
the role of the principal as the instructional leader is
particularly important in special education; because the
principal's attitude toward special education students, as well
as his ability (or inability) to supervise their instruction,
will ultimately determine the efficacy of the school's special
education services (see also Burrello, Schrup & Barnett, 1992;
Van Horn, Burrello & DeClue, 1992; Sirotnik & Kimball, 1994;
Valesky & Hirth, 1992). Yet, many building level administrators
may lack the prepartion necessary to directly supervise the
instructional practices of the special education teachers on
their staffs (Breton & Donaldson, 1991; Goor et al., 1997;
Sirotnik & Kimball, 1994).
Given that, the goals of this paper are: to identify and
examine the potential issues surrounding the instructional
supervision of special education teachers by building level
administrators; and to offer several recommendations to improve
the situation. To that end, this paper includes a discussion of
how, in general, school administrators are trained to supervise
supervision, 2
their faculties. Following that is an examination of how special
education teachers are trained to carry out their duties; and
how, if at all, special education practices differ from those of
general education. Then, after considering both the
administrative and instructional sides of the educational coin,
several recommendations will be offered to help ensure a truly
beneficial supervisory experience. But, first, let us consider
how, in general, prospective administrators are trained to
supervise their faculties.
Becoming and Instructional Supervisor
According to Behar-Horenstein and Ornstein (1996),
"...principals for the 21st century will need to be able to cope
with change processes and challenges associated with educating
diverse student populations...",(p. 18)-. That said, the purpose
of this section is to provide a modest review of the current
trends in the instructional supervision process as they relate to
the training of prospective administrators. As a result, our goal
is to identify the current philosophical positions that are
influencing the training of licensed instructional supervisors.
Sullivan and Glanz (2000) identified seven methods of
instructional supervision that have evolved since the inception
of public schools in America. In particular, they note that
clinical supervision (see Cogan, 1973; Goldhammer, 1969; Hill,
1968), with it's emphasis on collegiality and collaboration,
dominated the 1970's and 1980's (p. 18); and that the "Changing
Concepts" model of supervision (see pp. 11 & 20) emerged in the
5
supervision, 3
early 1990's. But, what, exactly, is the "Changing Concepts"
model?
According to Sullivan and Glanz (2000), it involves the,
"...the dissolution of autocratic administrative practices where
overbearing supervisors rule by fiat" (p. 20); which essentially
means that teachers should be given more responsibility in the
supervision process. To support their claim that this movement
began in the 1990's, they point to the introduction of methods
such as teacher empowerment (e.g. Darling-Hammond & Goodwin,
1993), peer supervision (e.g. Willerman, McNeely & Koffman, 1991)
and cognitive coaching (e.g. Costa and Garmston, 1994).
Basically, in the Changing Concepts model, instructional
supervision is the responsibility of all professional educators
(e.g. Sergiovanni, 1992). But, does that mean that the principal
should be completely excluded from the process? Of course not.
Granted, as professionals, teachers should have a voice in
their own supervision. But, as noted in the introduction, the
influence of the principal in the instructional process is
significant, particularly in the delivery of special education
services (Burrello, et al., 1992; Goor, et al., 1997; Van Ham,
et al., 1992; Sirotnik, et al., 1994; Valesky, et al., 1992).
But, what is so special about special education?
Differences Between Special Education and General Education
Most anyone that has ever worked in a school that receives
federal funds recognizes that special education and general
education are, in many respects, quite different in both their
mission and procedures. For example, the use of standardized
6BEST COPY AVAILABLE
supervision, 4
assessment tools to determine the individual needs of a specific
student, and the design of an individual education program, sets
the special education process apart from the national standards
movement; which seeks to ensure the same education for every
student. Moreover, an additional discrepancy (typically) between
the two exists in the setting in which instruction is delivered
(Boone & Avila, 1992).
Boone and Avila (1992) suggest that special educators
perform multiple roles; whereas most general educators are
allowed to focus almost entirely upon the instruction of their
students. To that end, they state that tasks like "...record
keeping, referring students for evaluation, implementing
.diagnostic procedures, observing stringent due process
requirements and functioning as a member of a team of
specialists..." (p. 89), differentiate special educators from
general educators. Be that as it may, however, they then add
that, "Although very real, differences between regular and
special education settings must never obscure the purpose that
brings the principal into the classroom: assessing the quality of
special education instruction" (p. 89). Unfortunately, however,
with regard to instruction and supervision, they seem to have
disregarded the differences between special and general
education.
For.example, on page ninety, Boone and Avila (1992) state
that, "Students are students." They then add that, "The same
behaviors that mark effective teaching in the regular classroom
also indicate effective teaching in the special education
7
supervision, 5
classroom" (p. 91). Although, to a certain extent, those
statements may be true, we take issue with them; because if, as
Boone and Avila (1992) appear to suggest, general educators
already possess the necessary skills (teaching methods) to meet
the needs of their disabled students, why, then, do we need
specialists, who have been specially trained and licensed to
administer specialized instruction to the disabled, in the
schools? Indeed, it appears as though Boone and Avila (1992)
believe that what makes special education special is the fact
that it usually takes place in a small group setting. But, is
that accurate?
Fuchs and Fuchs (1995) offer that at least two, specific,
features differentiate a special educator's approach to
instruction from the efforts of their general education
counterparts. Specifically, they are "...the use of empirically
validated procedures and an intensive, data based focus on
individual students" (p. 527). To that end, research suggests
that specialized instructional methods, such as applied behavior
analysis (Birnie-Selwyn & Guerin, 1997; Olympia, Sheridan, Jenson
& Andrews, 1994), task analysis (Bateman, 1971; Hallahan,
Kauffman & Lloyd, 1999), direct instruction (Brophy & Good, 1986;
Engelmann, 1997; Hallahan, Kauffman & Lloyd, 1999; Rosenshine and
Stevens, 1986), cognitive-behavior modification (Meichenbaum,
1977), and mnemonic instruction (Brigham, Scruggs & Mastropieri,
1995; Scruggs and Mastropieri, 1992) have proven to be highly
effective with special needs learners. Unfortunately, such
techniques are rarely incorporated into the course work of
8
supervision, 6
preservice general educators. Moreover, Fuchs and Fuchs (1995)
found that many inservice general educators were reluctant to
alter their instructional practices based upon the individual
needs of the special education students in their classrooms.
Given those findings, therefore, while small group
instruction may be an integral component of the special education
process, it is by no means the single determinant of success.
Indeed, if they are to help their students succeed, special
educators cannot afford the luxury of learning, and applying,
only one method of instruction (e.g. whole language) as many
general educators are trained to do. Instead, they must be-able,
and willing, to apply a wide variety of instructional techniques
that have been empirically proven to work with whatever
disability type(s) the student may display. To that end, Meyen,
Vergason and Whelan (1996), add that all instructional efforts
...should be determined not by what is popular, but by what is
tested, evaluated, and proven to be effective for all
students..." (p. 31). That is especially so when working with
children who have identified difficulties with learning.
As a result, school administrators, who directly supervise
the instruction of special education teachers, must also, as
professionals, be able to clinically evaluate the varied
instructional practices of the specialists on their faculties to
ensure that best practice methodologies are being employed. But,
is the average administrator, fresh from an administrative
licensure program, adequately prepared to perform that task?
supervision, 7
Unfortunately, it appears that, in too many cases, the answer is
"No."
Training Administrators to Supervise Special Educators
According to Breton and Donaldson (1991), many school
administrators "...report that they have received very little, if
any, training in supervising resource teachers and that they feel
inadequate in the performance of that task" (see also Davis,
1978; Moya and Glenda, 1982). Then, three years later, Sirotnik
and Kimball (1.994) added that "...Special education (and its
relationship to general education) is treated wholly
inadequately, if at all, in programs designed to prepare school
administrators" (p. 599).
To make their point, Sirotnik and Kimball (1994) examined
the initial report produced by the National Policy Board for
Educational Administration (1990) entitled Principals for Our
Changing Schools: Preparation and Certification, which identified
twenty-one specific skill areas pursuant to the principalship; as
well as the Board's 1993 publication, Principals for Our Changing
Schools: Knowledge and Skill Base, which further examined "...the
substance of each of these domains" (p. 600). Through that
process, Sirotnik, et al. (1994) found that, other than cursory
attention to the legal aspects of special education, the
education of the handicapped (methods of instruction, etc.)
received.scant attention-in the vast majority of administrative
licensure programs. For example, in Direct Teaching Tactics for
Exceptional Children: A Practice and Supervision Guide,
Stowitschek, Stowitschek, Hendrickson and Day (1984) contend
10
supervision, 8
that, "...direct teaching approaches show the greatest promise
for solving instruction problems, and an increased emphasis in
teacher education must be placed on guarantying the acquisition
and demonstration of direct teaching competence by teachers" (p.
vii). But, what, exactly, is direct instruction, and why does
defining it matter to the supervision process?
Defining Direct Instruction
Hallahan, Kauffman and Lloyd (1999) concisely defined the
two types of direct instruction (specifically direct instruction
(d.i.], the generic term for teacher led instruction, and Direct
Instruction [D.I.], the name given to an explicit set of tracking
strategies). In both, structured lessons are presented that:
present new information in small doses, with frequent
questioning, to small groups, with opportunities for extensive
practice as well as feedback, reinforcement and correction (see
page 67). In D.I., however, Hallahan, et al. (1999) argue that
the Theory of Instruction, as identified by Engelmann & Carnine
(1982), influences the goal of the instruction; because, students
are taught (through multiple experiences in a controlled
environment) to apply learned practices to new situations in
order to solve unfamiliar problems outside of their practice
environment. That said, it is essential that instructional
supervisors (vis a vis building administrators) understand the
similarities and differences between d.i. and D.I., as well as
understand the end goal of the lesson before they observe it, if
they are to be expected to effectively evaluate the instruction.
Moreover, we specifically chose to examine the concept of direct
11
supervision, 9
instruction because it is frequently referred to by many
administrators who may, in fact, not understand what direct
instruction actually is; which could adversely affect their
ability to provide sound, professional, instructional support to
the special educators on their faculties.
Improving the Supervision Process
According to Billingsley and Jones (1993), "Failure to
provide adequate supervision prevents systems from creating
conditions necessary for building strong instructional programs"
(p. 3). Moreover, Fimian (1986) concluded that the inferior
supervision of special educators is directly related to the
attrition of such specialists in schools. What, therefore, can be
done to address the apparent inability of many building level
supervisors (principals and assistant principals) to supervise
the special education instructional practices that take place
within their buildings? We offer that four general steps should
be taken.
Additional preservice training of administrators in special
education. According to Patterson, Marshall & Bowling (2000),
"Only five states have special education requirements for
administrator certification" (p. 17). To that end, Tryneski
(1996-1997) found that in Florida, administrative candidates have
the option of completing a six hour emphasis in a specified area,
and special education is one of the choices (p. 29). Alabama, on
the other hand, requires a three hour generalized course in the
special education; but, only, "..if not completed for another
certification" (p. 12). In comparison, Idaho (p. 71), Missouri
12
supervision, 10
(p. 134), and Maine (p. 111) each require that prospective
administrators have a basic level of competence in special
education and it's related issues. Granted, those five states
should be applauded for recognizing the need their step in the
right direction. But, forty-five other states still have no
requirements principals. That could foreshadow very negative
repercussions for school systems who's principals are encouraged
to employ site-based management of their particular school's
special education programs without sufficient training to support
their decisions.
Inservice training for current administrators. Patterson, et
al. (2000) stated that, "Principals must participate in ongoing
education regarding the changes and trends in the field of
special education...," which, in turn, will effect the
principal's opinions about special education instruction;
because, "...the principal's actions are the most important
indicator of his or her beliefs" (p. 19). This step is also
crucial because opinions about the efficacy of different
instructional methodologies, whether empirically proven or not,
are often produced by an instructional bandwagon mentality; and
it is, "A primary responsibility of educato-rs...to minimize the
contribution of poor teaching to learning disabilities"
(Hallahan, Kauffman & Lloyd, 1997, p. 6). To that same end,
Kauffman.(1994) concluded that, "Special education carries
special responsibility for care in teaching or it has no meaning,
regardless of where or by whom it is offered" (p. 616-617).
13
0 - t '"
supervision, 11
process. Osborne, DiMattia and Curran (1993) stress the need for
the incorporation of multiple professionals into the supervision
process as it applies to special education teachers; because of
the awkward position in which their job places them.
Specifically, they stated that, "Special education practitioners
are sometimes confused over who their immediate supervisor is. As
members of the special education department, they come under the
auspices of the special education administrator. As members of
the faculty of the building that their program is located in,
they fall within the supervisory domain of the building
principal" (p. 41).
To that end, Osborne, et al. (1993) suggested that, with
regard to the supervision of special educators, the task be
shared by both the principals and the/a special education
administrator. Specifically, they contend that the principal is
in the best position to evaluate the teacher's ability to meet
the needs (daily) of their students, and their ability to
interact with other teachers. But, since special educators often
employ instructional methodologies that are significantly
different from those of the general education staff (which the
principal is accustomed to supervising), the special education
administrator is in a better position to evaluate the efficacy of
their instruction (see p. 44). Such shared responsibility may,
however, inadvertently create a negative situation.
For example, will the school's secretary transfer a phone
call from a parent, who is upset about how their disabled child
14
supervision, 12
is being taught, to the special education director in the central
office; or to the school's principal (the defacto representative
of the central office) who is already on-site? In such instances,
it does not seem far-fetched to assume that the principal will be
the one who is expected to handle such situations. As a result,
we believe that the principal should be the primary,
instructional supervisor of his or her entire staff (including
the special educators). Doing so, however, requires that
principals attain, and maintain, a significant level of
understanding about the methods, and processes, of special
education instruction.
When observing, focus on quality not quantity. In 1997,
Coladarci and Breton concluded that, among a group of. Maine
resource room teachers, the perceived utility of the
instructional supervision that they received, rather than it's
frequency, was significantly related to a higher sense of teacher
efficacy. That theme also emerged in Kaufman and Walker (1993),
who found that a percieved greater interest in program
appearance, rather than quality of instruction, was ranked fourth
(out of thirty-four irritating behaviors exhibited by school
administrators) by special educators. Administrators must,
therefore, be cogniscent of the atmosphere that their supervisory
actions, and inactions, create within their faculties.
Conclusion
If we accept the notion that principals are their schools'
instructional leaders, we must not exclude special education from
that system. Unfortunately, our findings support the notion that
15
supervision, 13
many administrative preparatory programs have done just that. As
previously noted, at present, only five states have modified
their administrative licensure requirements to include a specific
(albeit basic) knowledge of special education practices; and in
one of those five (Florida), special education is only one of a
host of options that a prospective administrator may choose to
study.
Indeed, special education, far more than general education,
presents principals with their greatest risk of legal liability.
As a result, building level administrators must possess, and
maintain through inservice training, a thorough understanding of
both special education law and the empirically validated
instructional methodologies that special educators are trained to
employ. That is especially true in school divisions that apply a
site-based management system in which each principal is
encouraged to design (within the law and division policy), and
supervise, her school's instructional delivery systems.
Failure to ensure that principals are able to identify best
practice methods when they see them, as well as when they do not,
ensures that the quality of instruction that every child receives
is left to chance; and that is unacceptable.
16
supervision, 14
References
Algozzoine, B., Ysseldyke, J. E., & Campbell, P. (1994).
Strategies and tactics for effective instruction. Teaching
Exceptional Children, 26 (3), 34-35.
Bateman, B. (1971) The essentials of teaching. Cresswell,
OR: Otter Ink Press.
Behar-Horenstein, L., & Ornstein, A. C. (1996). Curriculum,
instruction, and supervision: Essential leadership roles for
principals Focus on Educations 40, 14-19.
Billingsley, B. S., & Jones, P. R. (1993). Instructional
supervision in special education: Strategies for rural programs.
RuralSpecialEsiacatisuLnuartex112. (2), 3-9.
.Birnie-Selwyn, B., & Guerin, B. (1997). Teaching children to
spell: Decreasing consonant cluster errors by eliminating
selective stimulus control Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis,
an, 69-91.
Boone,, M., & Avila, L. (1992). "Wasn't that a good special
education lesson? Bulletin, 76 (544), 88-95.
Breton, W. A., & Donaldson, G. A. (1991). Too little, too
late? The supervision of maine resource room teachers. The
Journal of Special Education. 25 (1), 114-125.
Brophy, J., & Good, T. L. (1986). Teacher behavior and
student achievement. In M. C. Whittrock (Ed.), Handbook of
research on teaching (3rd ed., pp. 328-375). New York: Macmillan.
17
supervision, 15
Brigham, F. J., Scruggs, T. E., & Mastropieri, M. A. (1995).
Elaborative maps for enhanced learning of historical information:
Uniting spatial, verbal, and imaginal information Journal of
Special Education, 28, 440-460.
Burrello, L. C., Schrup, M. G., & Barnett, B. G. (1992). The
principal as the special education leader. Bloomington:
University of Indiana.
Cline, R. (1981). Principals' attitudes and knowledge about
handicapped children. Exceptional Children, 48, 172-176.
Cogan, M. L.(1973). Clincalawitarzialam, Boston: Houghton
Mifflin.
Coladarci, T., & Breton, W. A. (1997). Teacher efficacy,
supervision, and the special education resource room teacher.
Journal of Educational Research, 90 (4), 230-239.
Costa, A., & Garmston, R., (1994). Cognitive coaching:
Approaching renaissance schools. Norwood, MA: Christopher Gordon.
Darling-Hammond, L., & Goodwin, A, L. (1993). Progress
toward professionalism in teaching. In G. Cawelti (Ed.),
Challenges and achievements of American education (pp. 19-52).
Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum
Development.
Davis, W. (1978). Principals' attitudes toward mainstreaming
and related training needs. Orono: The University of Maine Press.
Demchak, M. A. (1993). Training school administrators of
rural school districts to improve programs for students with
severe disabilities. BuralSpeciaLEhicaticaLQuaLtarly,12 (3),
18-22.
18
supervision, 16
Engelmann, S., & Carnine D. (1982) Theory of instruction:
Principles and applications. New York: Irvington.
Engelmann, S. (1997). Theory of mastery and acceleration.
J. W. Lloyd, E. J. Kameenui, & D. Chard (Eds.), Issues in
educating students with disabilities (pp. 177-195). Mahwah, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Fimian, M. (1986). Social support and occupational stress in
special education. Exceptional Children, 52, 436-442.
Fuchs, D., & Fuchs, L. S. (1995). What's "special" about
special education? phi Delta Kappan. 76 (7), 522-530.
Goldhammer, R. (1969) Clinical supervision: Special methods
for the supervision of teachers. New York: Holt, Rinehart, &
Winston.
Goor, M. B., Schwenn, J. 0., & Boyer, L. (1997). Preparing
principals for leadership in special education. Intervention in
School and Clinic, 32 (3), 133-141.
Hallahan, D. P., Kauffman, J. M., & Lloyd, J. W. (1997).
Introduction to learning disabilities. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Hallahan, D., Kauffman, J., & Lloyd, J. W. (1999).
Introduction to learning disabilities (2nd ed.). Boston: Allyn
and Bacon.
Hill, W. M. (1968). I-B-F supervision: A technique for
changing teacher behavior The Clearing House, 43, 180-183.
19
supervision, 17
Kaufman, M. E., & Walker, J. J. (1993, November). Irritating
behaviors of school administrators as perceived by special
education teachers. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the
Severe Emotional Disturbance Conference, Tempe, AZ. (ERIC
Document Reproduction Service No. ED 366 121).
Kauffman, J. M. (1994). Places of change: Special
education's power and identity in an era of educational reform.
Journal of Learning Disabilities. 27, 610-618.
Kirner, M., Vatour, J. A., & Vatour, M. B. (1993, March);
Enhancing instructional programs within the schools: Training
school principals in special eduction administration. Paper
presented at the International Conference of the Learning
Disabilities Association, San Francisco.
Marrs, L. W. (1984). A bandwagon without music: Preparing
rural special educators. Exceptional Children, 50, 334-342.
Meichenbaum, D. (1977) Cognitive behavior modification: An
intearatizeaaaraaah. New York: Plenum Press.
Meyen, E. L., Vergason, G. A., & Whelan, R. J. (1996).
Strategies for teaching: Exceptional children in inclusive
settings. Denver: Love.
Moya, S., & Glenda, G. (1982). Evaluation of special
education teachers Teacher Education and Special Education, 5,
37-41.
National Policy Board for Educational Administration (1990).
Principals for our changing schools: Preparation` and
certification. Fairfax, VA: Author.
supervision, 18
National Policy Board for Educational Administration (1993).
Principals for our changing schools: _Knowledge and skill base
Fairfax, VA: Author.
Olympia, D. E., Sheridan, S. M., Jenson, W. R., & Andrews,
D. (1994). Using student-managed interventions to increase
homework completion and accuracy. Journal of Applied Behavior
Analysis. 27, 85-99.
Osborne, Jr., A. G., DiMattia, P., & Curran, F. X. (1993).
Effective management of special education programs: A handbook
for school administrators. New York: Teachers College, Columbia
University.
Patterson, J.,-Marshall, C., & Bowling D. (2000). Are
principals prepared to manage special education dilemmas?
Bulletin, 84 (613), 9-20.
Rosenshine, B., & Stevens, R. (1986). Teaching functions. In
M. C. Whittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed.,
pp. 376-391). New York: Macmillan.
Scruggs, T. E., & Mastropieri, M. A. (1992). Classroom
applications of mnemonic instruction: Acquisition, maintenance,
and generalization. Exceptional Children, 58, 219-229.
Sergiovanni, T. J. (1992). Moral authority and the
regeneration of supervision. In C. D. Glickman (Ed.), Supervision
in transition (pp.30-43). Alexandria, VA: Association for
Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Sirotnik, K. A., & Kimball, K. (1994). The unspecial place
of special education in programs that prepare school
administrators. Journal of School Leadership, 4 (6), 598-630.
21
supervision, 19
Stowitschek, J. J., Stowitschek, C. E., Hendrickson, J. M.,
& Day, R. M. (1984) aLraatTaachiagTactLasLQLE,Acea2tjQnsai
Children: A Practice and Supervision Guide Rockville, MD: Aspen.
Sullivan, S., & Glanz, J. (2000). Supervision that improves
teaching: Strategies and techniques. Thousand Oaks, CA.: Corwin.
Tryneski, J. (1996-1997) Requirements for certification of
teachers, counselors_ librarians, administrators for elementary
and secondary schools. Chicago, Ill.: The University of Chicago
Press.
Valesky, T. C., & Hirth, M. A. (1992). Survey of the states:
Special Education knowledge requirements for school
administrators. Exceptional Children, 58 (3), 399-406.
Van Horn, G. P., Burrello, L. C., & DeClue, L. (1992).. An
instructional leadership framework: The principal's leadership in
special education.
(1), 41-54.
Willerman, M., McNeely, S. L., & Koffman, C. E. (1991).
Teachers helping teachers: Peer observation and assistance. New
York: Praeger.
. -
22
Reproduction Release
.0:: ..
U.S. Department' Of EducationOffice of Educational Research and Improvement
(OERI)National Library of Education (NLE)
Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC)
Reproduction Release(Specific Document)
I. DOCUMENT IDENTIFICATION:
http://ericfac.piccard.csc.com/reprod.htn- .
ERIC
Title:
c.petti.'..S., a .AS. Pec...i.a...i ECLL.0Author(s): v Mar 1+ L,.._e atx.Corporate Source:
()A/f-ce.
REPRODUCITON RELEASE:
I Publication Date:
In order to disseminate as widely as possible timely and significant materials of interest to the educational community, documentsannounced in the monthly abstract journal of the ERIC system, Resources in Education (REE), are usuallymade aVaBable to usersin microfiche, reproduced paper copy, and electronic media, and sold through the ERIC Document-Reproduction Service(EDRS). Credit is given to the source of each document; and, if reproduction release is granted, one of the follciWing notices is
affixed to the document.
If permission is granted to reproduce and disseminate the identified document, please CHECK ONE of the following threeoptions and sign in the indicated space following.
The sample sticker shown below will beaffixed to all Level 1 documents
The sample sticker shown below will be affixed to all !Level 2A documents
The sample sticker shown below will be affixed toLevel 2B documents
P.ERMISSION 10 REPRODUCE ANDDISSEMINATE THIS MATERIAL HAS
BEEN GRA: BY
... .
.
TO THE. EDUCATIONAL RESOURCESINFORMATION CENTER (ERIC)
PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE ANDDISSEMINATE. THIS MATERIAL IN
MICROFICHE. AND IN ELECTRONIC MEDIAFOR ERIC COLLECTION SUBSCRIBERS ONLY.
HAS BEEN GRAN BY
... . .
- - .
-
PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE ANDDISSEMINATE THIS MATERIAL IN
MICROFICHE ONLY HAS GRANTED 111
. ,. .,..- .. .
TO THE LOU&TIONAL RESOURCESINFORMATION CENTER. (ERIC)
. -lb- ...,TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES i
INFORMATION 'CENTER (ERIC) I
Level 1 .Level 2A JI:Level 2B,
t 1
i1 GB .
Check here for Level 1 release, permittingreproduction and dissemination in
microfiche or other ERIC archival media(e.g. electronic) and paper copy.
Check here for Level 2A release, permittingreproduction and dissemination in microfiche and in
electronic media for ERIC_ archival collection i
subscribers only
Check here for Level 2B release, permittingreproduction and dissemination in microfiche only
.
. Documents will be processed as indicated provided reproduction quality permits.If permission to reproduce is granted, but no box is checked, documents will be processed at Level 1.
1 of 3 10/4/00 4:43 Pl`
Reproduction Release http://ericfac.piccard.csc.com/reprod.htm.
Thereby grantfir ATE u-c-a-lianaelources In/ r donexclusive permission to reproducereprodudi5ñ1uiethis document as indicated above. Reproduction from the ERICmicrofiche, or electronic media by persons other than ERICemployees and its system contractors requires permission from the copyright holder. Exception is made for non-profitreproduction by libraries and other servic agencies to satisfy information needs of educators in response to discrete inquiries
Signet
sq, e-orfciavi (- C-4-
Crice. toifeSOdt.((e v4
Telephone:
5-4133Fax:
E-mail Address:
tQL-O eGCDate:
III. DOCUMENT AVAILABILITY INFORMATION (FROM NON-ERIC SOURCE):
If permission to reproduce is not granted to ERIC, or, if you wish ERIC to cite the availability of the document from anothersource, please provide the following information regarding the availability of the document. (ERIC will not announce a documentunless it is publicly available, and a dependable source can be specified. Contributors should also be aware that ERIC selectioncriteria are significantly more stringent for documents that cannot be madeavailable through EDRS.)
Publisher/Distributor:
Address:
Price:,
11'4; IC
IV. REFERRAL OF ERIC TO COPYRIGHT/REPRODUCTION RIGHTS HOLDER:
If the right to grant this reproduction release is held by someone other than the addressee, please provide the appropriate name
and address:
Name:
Address:
V. WHERE TO SEND THIS FORM:
Send this form to the following ERIC Clearinghouse:
However, it solicited by the ERIC Facility, or if makmg an unsolicited contribution to ERIC, return this form (and the document.7 7
being contributed) to:ERIC Processing and Reference Facility
4483-A Forbes BoulevardLanham, Maryland 20706Telephone: 301-552-4200Toll Free: 800-799-3742
2 of 310/4/00 4:43 Ps